Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements

[RedEarth]

Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements
During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.”

In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:

BUSH: was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… <6/17/04>

BUSH: is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. <9/23/04>

BUSH: a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. <3/6/03>

Transcript:

MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship.

watch the video here.....

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/

[Kagemusha]

1. Now this is just stupid. Usually he uses straw men, not flat denials

This is an easily provable untruth directly contradicting his own previous and well-publicized statements.

[Cornerstone]

2. Yes, but why can't the Democratic Party successfully use this against him?

Hi Kagemusha, you are so right, "This is an easily provable untruth directly contradicting his own previous and well-publicized statements."

However, why can't the Democrats successfully capitialize off of this and a blatant host of other 'easily provable untruths' that this man and his right-wing cronies have continously spoken?

It's amazing that they can't! It's almost as if the Democratic party has been 'hexed' into ineffectual fightback.

[Kagemusha]

4. Nonetheless it's the big failures, not the little details thereof.

The public is more interested in who will do the right thing in the future rather than be right about the past. That's where the real battle has to be fought.

Still, like I said, usually Bush uses straw men, like, oh.. "I never said Saddam ORDERED the 9/11 attacks" for a good recent example!

[Avalux]

3. Condi Rice made the same assertions this past weekend.

She was on CNN and said repeatedly that Saddam and Zarqawi were buddies, even though the reporter challenged her with the Senate report. Didn't matter, she kept lying.